About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
around our other ally israel, and that instability continues to grow. one of the things that was helpful from egypt while president mubarak was in charge, at least there was some effort to restrict the transfer of rockets into the gaza strip. so there were some tunnels that would be found, the tunnels had to be kept small so they were able to get smaller rockets into gaza. but now that there's a new regime, apparently the bigger rockets are getting in to gaza and they pose more and more of a threat as they continue to be fired into israel. the action is not only the fall of an ally, president mubarak, but the assistance in bringing to power in egypt the muslim brotherhood. they want to see israel gone and they would also not mind seing the united states gone. it's important when formulating foreign policy that the united states, particularly the obama administration, decide, are we going to be assisted with our own personal security issue here in the united states by the actions we take or are the re-- reactions that are going to be caused by our actions actually going to cause greater t
by -- met by some tough language from the security council. not from the government, israel or anyone. it was the security council under the charter of the united nations that put that pressure. of course we know that this system worked extremely well. it was 100% performance as a matter of fact. it's not bad for any u.n. organization to get the task and then i think it's probably the only one which succeeded to make it 100% performance. so the -- that means that both destruction capabilities and the monetary capabilities were forcefully placed. so everything looked shiny and fine until the u.s. government -- it was in spring of 1997, through madeline albright made the statement at george mason university, well, it looks like sanctions are -- disarmament is going well. if it goes well we can still not lift the sanctions which was a condition under the security council. sanctions -- so we can't lift the sanctions until saddam hussein is removed. so that came my obsession with the regime change. that, of course, destroyed in the sense the institution and operations. so i think that expe
of their force projection in the persian gulf into that conflict. i think there is hope that the u.s.-israel relationship is strong and open enough and the lines of communication are open up that it would not happen. one of the other things that if it may give a little positivity towards that is a concern that the nuclear facilities are so far in the ground that israel does not producing a satisfactory assault. they would need u.s. plant emissions to carry some of those weapons. perhaps that might give some hope there would be communication, if there is an attack down the line, that the two countries would be to work together and cordray. host: 3 more, go to foreignpolicy.com. thank you for talking to our viewers. guest: thank you for having me. host: that does it for today. we will be back live tomorrow morning but lawmakers make their way back for the lame-duck session that begins today. we will be up there taking your calls and your comments and questions. thank you for watching today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite cor
. >> are you concerned about is real? >> interesting, israel has a lot at stake, but they are also an independent decision maker. they have their own interest in this and have made it clear that they are not prepared to except without some of the military action iran with a clear path to a nuclear weapon. one scenario would be for the illustration to try to engage with the iranians diplomatically. with the other countries involved in the so called p five. offering a robust disclosure to the iranians if there regime will give up its nuclear program. to test them, to see if there is a diplomatic outcome that is accessible. if there is not, i think that that process will be important for the administration to set up options following the failure,, or the iranian regime. i would be very much on the lower end of military options. as part of the scenario of giving them over to give up weapons, it is that kind of scenario development i would try, which is the direction we're heading in at this point. dennis is going to speak to you later this morning, he is terrific on this subject and yo
not be jeopardized for our one true ally in the middle east, the state of israel. this included showing some support for what is become widely dome of the iron rocket defense system. but our focus in the middle east has certainly not stopped there. we've gone to great lengths in this congress to zero in on what i believe is the greatest threat we have to our own national security, and that is a nuclear armed iran. i've been pleased to team with representative ted deutch and senator kirk on a number of bills to stem this -- and confront this threat. our actions have ranged from strengthening sanctions on iran's energy sector to promoting human rights and democracy inside iran and much more. in fact, one of our most important accomplishments in this congress will have been a strong sanctions package which passed both houses this summer and which included these provisions that we authored. finally, i'd like to highlight the ongoing work to pass a bipartisan budget agreement. this is an initiative that i have been proud to advance, starting with the bipartisan letter urging the supercommittee to go big,
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)